Breaking the communication code | UDaily – UDaily

You cant call it a dictionary just yet, but University of Delaware neuroscientist Joshua Neunuebel is starting to break the code mice use to communicate with each other.

So far, its all action-specific. Mice sound one way when they are being chased, quite another when they are the chaser, not much at all when they are not in motion.

He knows this because he and his research team have found a way to identify precisely which mouse is making which sound, where and when.

Their findings, which were just published in Nature Neuroscience, provide a foundation for examining the neural circuits that link sensory cues specifically these ultrasonic mouse calls to social behavior.

This is fundamental science that will allow us to potentially get at more complicated problems, Neunuebel said. That includes a broad range of communication disorders, including autism.

The work is supported by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, the University of Delaware Research Foundation and Delawares General University Research Program.

Humans cant hear the majority of mouse-to-mouse vocal interactions at all because they happen on a scale our ears dont catch. This is likely one of lifes hidden blessings, since mice like to scurry around in our walls, attics, basements and other human habitats.

But studying their communication patterns can help researchers understand the neurobiology of social behavior and bring valuable insightnot just into the secret life of rodents, but possibly into the mechanics of human communication. Research shows that about 98 percent of human genes are shared by mice.

To study these mouse interactions, Neunuebels team gathered data as four mice two males, two females got acquainted. The mice interacted for five hours at a time in a chamber fitted with eight microphones and a video camera. Researchers recorded 10 similar encounters using different mice each time, studying a total of 44 mice.

They collected enormous amounts of data, with each microphone capturing 250,000 audio samples per second and the video camera capturing 30 frames per second. Each five-hour encounter produced more than 100 gigabytes of data.

Using machine-learning programs along with other computational approaches, they were able to show that specific sounds were associated with distinct behaviors.

To make sense of the mountain of data, we wrote a lot of computer programs, Neunuebel said. Everybody in the lab now writes code and thats a huge attribute of what my lab does. I think its essential for deciphering very complex behavior.

That code is available free of charge to other interested researchers, he said.

Among their findings:

Mouse calls are different depending on the position of the mouse whether they are chasing or fleeing.

Decreasing pitch was related to dominant signals, while increasing pitch was related to non-dominant behavior.

A significant link was found between certain calls and behavior that followed.

The sounds affect only the mouse who is interacting, not those who are nearby but not involved in the action.

Different situations produced different types of calls.

Another recent study by Neunuebels team drew on the same microphone/camera setup and showed how specific social interactions differ.

In that study, published by Scientific Reports, the calls of female mice were analyzed by their interaction with male mice or with other female mice.

They found two new distinctives in this study. First, female mice almost always vocalize at close range to other mice, while male mice call out at widely varying distances. Second, female mice vocalize sooner when in the company of male mice than in the company of other females.

The team said the most compelling finding of this study was that mouse behavior changes depending on the vocalizations of other mice. For example, the male accelerates after a female vocalizes if she is moving faster than he has been.

Neunuebel said his labs setup where the mice mingle freely is much more dynamic than more standard approaches that allow animals to see each other but keep them separated to make it easier to quantify an animals social behavior.

Here there is free interaction, he said. It is complex and the mice emit a lot of vocalizations. We know who is vocalizing and we can see how they all respond to specific types of calls.

That is information that may soon produce much more insight into how a mouses brain circuitry works the way messages are sent, interpreted and acted upon.

Joshua Neunuebel is an assistant professor of neuroscience at the University of Delaware. He earned bachelors and masters degrees in biology at Texas A&M University and his doctorate in neuroscience at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. He did postdoctoral fellowships at Johns Hopkins University and Howard Hughes Medical Institutes Janelia Research Campus, before joining the UD faculty in 2014.

Read this article:
Breaking the communication code | UDaily - UDaily

Why Eliminative Materialism Cannot Be a Good Theory of the Mind – Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

In a recent podcast neurosurgeon Michael Egnor talked with Robert J. Marks about the mind and its relationship to the brain and about different theories as to how the mind works. One of the theories they discussed was eliminative materialism, the idea that there is no mind, really; its just the brain buzzing.

Here is a partial transcript with some notes:

01:55 | What defines a good theory of the mind?

Robert J. Marks (right): What constitutes a good theory of the mind and the way the mind relates to the body and the brain?

Michael Egnor: Well, its a great question and a very important question. It was actually a question that Aristotle. (384322 B.C.E.) asked. In his work De Anima, he asked, what would a good explanation for the soul consist of?

Robert J. Marks: You mentioned the idea of a soul. Is this the mind, according to Aristotle?

Michael Egnor: Yes. What we call the mind is more of a subset of what the classical philosophers called the soul. They saw the soul as that which makes a living body alivewhat we would call the mind but also the physiological functions, the heartbeat, and all the physiology that goes along with it. And actually, I think thats a more sensible and comprehensive view of the human being. So what we think of as the mind is just several of the powers of the soul.

[Aristotle], in other words, didnt separate what we would call the mind so sharply from what we would call ordinary physiology, breathing, heartbeat, and the like. He thought of it all as an integrated whole.

Robert J. Marks: I see. So could you be more specific about what constitutes a good theory of the mind and the way the mind relates to the body?

Michael Egnor: Well, the very first thing we need is a theory that makes sense. And by that, I mean at least a theory that is not internally self-refuting. A good example of a self-refuting theory of the mind is eliminative materialism. [ ] It is the viewpoint that the only thing that exists is the brain. There is no mind, that what we have come to think of as our mind is just the physical processes going on inside our brain.

03:51 | The self-refuting theory of eliminative materialism

Eliminative materialism (or eliminativism) is the radical claim that our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind is deeply wrong and that some or all of the mental states posited by common-sense do not actually exist and have no role to play in a mature science of the mind.

That is different from another theory of the mind called identity theory that was held in the twentieth century but has been pretty much discarded:

Identity theory is a family of views on the relationship between mind and body. Type Identity theories hold that at least some types (or kinds, or classes) of mental states are, as a matter of contingent fact, literally identical with some types (or kinds, or classes) of brain states. The earliest advocates of Type IdentityU.T. Place, Herbert Feigl, and J.J.C. Smart, respectivelyeach proposed their own version of the theory in the late 1950s to early 60s. But it was not until David Armstrong made the radical claim that all mental states (including intentional ones) are identical with physical states, that philosophers of mind divided themselves into camps over the issue.

Its been discarded because its logical nonsense. Every attribute of the mind, reason, emotion, perception, all of those things are completely different from matter, That is, one describes matter as extensions in space; one describes perceptions and reason and emotions in completely different ways. Theres no overlap between them so mental states cant be the same thing as physical states. They actually dont share any properties in common. Theyre clearly related to one another in important ways but theyre not the same thing.

Eliminative materialists go one step further. They actually say that there are no mental states, that there is only the brain. Which is kind of an odd thing to say because what eliminative materialists are saying is that their ideas are mindless.

How can you have a proposition that the mind doesnt exist? That means propositions dont exist and that means that you dont have a proposition.

Robert J. Marks: So thats the self-refuting you were talking about

Michael Egnor (above left): Yes, its crazy, and Aristotle made that point: The very first thing, if you are going to explain the soul (or the mind), is that what you say has to make sense.

Theres a neuroscientist named Bennett and a philosopher named Hacker who have written extensively on this and topic of neurophilosophy and have written some very good things. And their motto is that the precondition of truth is sense. That is, that you cant pretend to have a scientific truth or a philosophical truth or any kind of truth if the statement that you are making about it doesnt even make sense. Eliminative materialism is self-refuting: If its true, then its false.

Note: M.R. (Max) Bennett and P.M.S. (Peter) Hacker are the authors of Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience (Wiley-Blackwell, 2003):

In this provocative work, a distinguished philosopher and a leading neuroscientist outline the conceptual problems at the heart of cognitive neuroscience. Writing from a scientifically and philosophically informed perspective, the authors provide a critical overview of the conceptual difficulties encountered in many current neuroscientific and psychological theories, including those of Blakemore, Crick, Damasio, Edelman, Gazzaniga, Kandel, Kosslyn, LeDoux, Penrose and Weiskrantz. They propose that conceptual confusions about how the brain relates to the mind affect the intelligibility of research carried out by neuroscientists, in terms of the questions they choose to address, the description and interpretation of results and the conclusions they draw. The book forms both a critique of the practice of cognitive neuroscience and a conceptual handbook for students and researchers.

So the first thing is that your theory has to make sense. And I think there are various theories that do make sense in varying degrees.

The second criterion is that the theory needs to offer a reasonably good explanation for the mind and for the body and it has to fit the evidence. And you very much want the theory to be consistent with the results of neuroscience obviously. Neuroscience is a beautiful and powerful field. Neuroscience has, I think, been philosophically misguided in substantial ways but we have to take the experimental evidence, the data, quite seriously and try to understand it in a way that makes sense.

Next: Why the mind cannot just emerge from the brain

Is the mind an emergent property of the brain? Or is there something else going on? Robert J. Marks discusses the different theories of the mind including materialism, panpsychism, and dualism with Dr. Michael Egnor.

00:37 | Introducing Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook01:32 | We can use our minds to understand our minds01:55 | What defines a good theory of the mind?02:26 | The mind vs. the soul03:51 | The self-refuting theory of eliminative materialism07:12 | A reasonably good explanation that fits the facts08:09 | What theories of the mind make sense?08:32 | A materialist perspective of the mind10:04 | The idea of emergence11:26 | The wetness of water13:27 | Qualia the way things feel14:17 | Two problems of explaining consciousness15:40 | Panpsychism17:49 | Dualist theories of the mind18:29 | Cartesian dualism20:00 | Hylomorphism21:17 | Comparing theories of the mind25:32 | The emerging field of neuroscience and its effect on theories of the mind

Further reading on theories of mind:

Can we engineer consciousness in a robot? One neuroscientist thinks we need only simple guidelines. His underlying assumptions are just wrong.

and

Neuroscientist Michael Graziano should meet the p-zombie (Michael Egnor) To understand consciousness, we need to establish what it is not before we create any more new theories.

Read more:
Why Eliminative Materialism Cannot Be a Good Theory of the Mind - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence

Researchers Synthesize New Drugs to Treat Brain-Eating Amoeba Infections – BioSpace

Although frightening, brain-eating amoeba infections in the U.S. are quite rare, with only about 146 cases reported in the U.S. since 1962. However, despite the rarity, its very deadly, killing about 97% of infected patients.

The infections are of Naegleria fowleri, which lives in warm bodies of fresh water. There, it usually eats bacteria found in the mud. Most infections of people in the U.S. occur in southern states in the summer, especially Texas and Florida. The sediment is disrupted and amoeba get mixed into the water, which the swimmers inhale through their nose. From there, the amoeba affects the olfactory nerves and migrates to the brain, where it causes primary amoebic meningoencephalitis. Another deadly amoeba of this type is Balamuthia mandrillaris.

No one drug is particularly effective in treating it. Researchers, however, recently published research in the journal ACS Chemical Neuroscience describing some new compounds that show promise as treatment.

Led by Ruqaiyyah Siddiqui of Sunway University in Malaysia, they studied quinazolinones, which have a wide spectrum of activity against bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites and cancer. But they have never been tested against brain-eating amoebae.

They synthesized 34 new quinazolinone derivatives and evaluated how they effected N. fowleri and B. mandrillaris. They found some were very effective at killing the amoeba in Petri dishes. Sometimes, by adding silver nanoparticles, the compounds were even more effective.

They found that the most effective quinazolinones contained chlorine, methyl or methoxy groups, with relatively low toxicity in human cells.

One of the reasons the infections are so deadly isnt just that its difficult to get drugs across the blood-brain barrier, but the infection stimulates the bodys immune system, which causes inflammation and brain swelling. The increase in cranial pressure damages the brains connection to the spinal cord, which disrupts communication with other parts of the body, such as the respiratory system.

Although symptoms can appear as early as two days, or as long as two weeks after inhaling the amoebae, the first symptoms are genericheadache, fever, nausea and vomiting, as well as change in the sense of smell or taste. But from there it quickly progresses through the central nervous system, causing a stiff neck, confusion, fatigue, balance problems, seizures and hallucinations. Death often occurs within five to seven days after the onset of symptoms.

The amoebae cause fast and irreversible destruction of important brain tissue. The symptoms are often mistaken for less dangerous diseases. And there is no quick diagnostic assay for N. fowleri, so patients are often mistreated for viral or bacterial meningitis.

Millions of people are exposed to these amoebae and dont get ill. Its still unknown why it is more likely to affect some people than others.

Despite the relative rarity, it was only in September 2019 that a 10-year-old girl in Texas died from a N. fowleri infection only eight days after having a headache and fever. The physicians thought it was a virus, but when she grew confused and unresponsive, was taken to an emergency room, then flown to Cook Childrens Medical Center in Fort Worth. A spinal tap determined she had been infected by the amoeba.

Read the original:
Researchers Synthesize New Drugs to Treat Brain-Eating Amoeba Infections - BioSpace

Optogenetic Market to 2027 Global Analysis and Forecasts By Product Type (Actuators, Sensors, Light Instruments); Application (Retinal Disease…

Sameer Joshi Call: US: +1-646-491-9876, Apac: +912067274191Email: [emailprotected]

Pune City, January, 2020 The report provides a detailed overview of the industry including both qualitative and quantitative information. It provides overview and forecast of the global optogenetics market based on various segments. It also provides market size and forecast estimates from year 2017 to 2027 with respect to five major regions, namely; North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific (APAC), Middle East and Africa (MEA) and South & Central America. The optogenetics market by each region is later sub-segmented by respective countries and segments. The report covers analysis and forecast of 18 countries globally along with current trend and opportunities prevailing in the region.

Interesting? Apply for a sample report: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/sample/TIP00014441

Top Companies Covered in this Report:

The report also includes the profiles of key optogenetics market companies along with their SWOT analysis and market strategies. In addition, the report focuses on leading industry players with information such as company profiles, components and services offered, financial information of last 3 years, key development in past five years.

Coherent, Inc.

Thorlabs, Inc.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc.

Scientifica

Laserglow Technologies

Gensight Biologics

Jackson Laboratories

Regenxbio Inc.

Circuit Therapeutics, Inc.

Bruker

What is Market Overview of Optogenetic MarketIndustry?

Optogenetic is the biological technique in which light is used to control the cell in living tissue, it is emerging technique. The optogenetics helps to understand the normal and abnormal functioning of brain and used to treat the neurological disorder. In Optogenetics light and genetic engineering is used to control the cell activity and neurons activity. Optogenetics is used to treat the retinal disease, hearing loss, memory disorder.

Where are the market Dynamics for Optogenetic MarketSystems?

The global optogenetics market is expected to have increasing growth due to factors such as increase in neurological disease, technological advancement, increase in awareness about tools, availability of genetic reagents are driving the market growth.

How the Market Segmentations of Optogenetic Market?

The global optogenetics market is segmented on the basis of product type and application. Based on product type, the market is segmented as actuators, sensors, and light instruments. On the basis of application, the global optogenetics market is segmented into retinal disease treatment, neuroscience, cardiovascular ailments, pacing, and hearing problem treatment.

Direct Order This Report:https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/buy/TIP00014441

Key Points from TOC

11.1. Coherent, Inc.

11.1.1. Key Facts11.1.2. Business Description11.1.3. Products and Services11.1.4. Financial Overview11.1.5. SWOT Analysis11.1.6. Key Developments

11.2. Thorlabs, Inc

11.2.1. Key Facts11.2.2. Business Description11.2.3. Products and Services11.2.4. Financial Overview11.2.5. SWOT Analysis11.2.6. Key Developments

11.3 Scientifica

11.3.1. Key Facts11.3.2. Business Description11.3.3. Products and Services11.3.4. Financial Overview11.3.5. SWOT Analysis11.3.6. Key Developments

11.4. Regenxbio Inc.

11.4.1. Key Facts11.4.2. Business Description11.4.3. Products and Services11.4.4. Financial Overview11.4.5. SWOT Analysis11.4.6. Key Developments

Continue

Get Complete [emailprotected]: https://www.premiummarketinsights.com/reports-tip/optogenetic-market

About Premium market insights:

Premiummarketinsights.comis a one stop shop of market research reports and solutions to various companies across the globe. We help our clients in their decision support system by helping them choose most relevant and cost effective research reports and solutions from various publishers. We provide best in class customer service and our customer support team is always available to help you on your research queries.

Tags: Australia Optogenetic MarketEurope Optogenetic Market. Japan Optogenetic MarketFrance Optogenetic MarketGermany Optogenetic MarketGlobal Optogenetic MarketItaly Optogenetic MarketOptogenetic MarketRussia Optogenetic MarketSouth Korea Optogenetic MarketUK Optogenetic Market

More here:
Optogenetic Market to 2027 Global Analysis and Forecasts By Product Type (Actuators, Sensors, Light Instruments); Application (Retinal Disease...

The UK must continue to accelerate innovation by investing in the people and platforms that drive immunological research – PoliticsHome.com

The past 70 years have witnessed an accelerating journey of discovery into the workings of the immune system, revolutionising our understanding of this intriguing area of medicine. The UK has been at the forefront of this, developing the infrastructure for experimental medicine and securing our position as leaders in advanced therapeutics, whilst at the same time bringing the community together to shape the future of immunological research in the UK.

Millions of people in the UK are living with long-term diseases linked to the immune system[i]. Common conditions include Crohns disease, rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis, as well as MS, asthma and cancers. The remarkable accumulation of insights and discoveries has paved the way for a whole new wave of advanced therapeutics over the past two decades, each one helping the many thousands of people in the UK and millions worldwide affected by these conditions to improve their quality of life.

However, despite this progress, many people are still unable to lead fulfilled and active lives because of the physical and psychological impact of these conditions, all of which create a huge burden on the patient, the NHS and wider society. It is essential that the UK continues to invest in the people and platforms that drive translation of cutting-edge science into practical clinical use to address this remaining unmet need. We must take all possible steps to strengthen the UKs academic institutions and its life sciences industry that has such an important role to play in immunological research and commercialising novel therapies.

The British Society for Immunology, biopharmaceutical company AbbVie, the UK BioIndustry Association, and the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society recently came together to create and launch a vision for the future of immunology in the UK. Calling for policymakers to increase funding for immunology research, especially in areas of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, in line with the Governments 2.4% GDP research investment commitment, the Joint Vision for the Future of Immunology set out to further understand the underlying causes and characteristics of the diseases, and explore new approaches to help us better support patients. In particular:

It is only by working in partnership across the UK health system that we can advance our research efforts and ultimately benefit all patients in the UK.

#FutureOfImmunology

Join Chi Onwurah MP and AbbVie for a parliamentary roundtable to discuss the future of immunology and how innovation and advances in science in inflammatory conditions can help inform clinical practice, improve patient outcomes and reduce costs to the NHS. Thames Pavilion, 4 March 2020, 09:00. To RSVP, please email rsvp@dodsgroup.com #FutureOfImmunology

Disclaimers

This non-promotional meeting has been organised and funded by AbbVie and is intended for MPs and policy makers.

This article has been written by AbbVie with permission from Dr Doug Brown, Chief Executive of the British Society for Immunology, to by-line the article

See original here:
The UK must continue to accelerate innovation by investing in the people and platforms that drive immunological research - PoliticsHome.com

Capito, Manchin announce funding for Marshall University research – My Buckhannon

WASHINGTON, D.C. U.S. Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today announced a grant of $434,180 to support Marshall Universitys Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research. Funding is provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Across West Virginia, our universities are known for their exceptional research capabilities, Senator Capito said. This funding will help support Marshall Universitys Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine and further our understanding in the field of Immunology. I am proud of Marshall Universitys research efforts and the positive impact they create in our state. This is a wonderful investment into West Virginia, and I thank DHHS for their continued support.

Marshall University conducts essential research that impacts countless lives every day and this funding will ensure their research continues. I applaud Marshall for their great work in medical research, which covers diseases that affect millions of Americans, and look forward to them continuing to make West Virginia proud, said Senator Manchin.

View post:
Capito, Manchin announce funding for Marshall University research - My Buckhannon

Researchers warned re-emergence of SARS-like virus in 2007 – Outlook India

Researchers warned re-emergence of SARS-like virus in 2007

New Delhi, Feb 16 (IANS) The possibility that a SARS-like virus could re-emerge in China was warned by researchers in 2007. Experts had claimed that the presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats in southern China is a "time bomb".

The outbreak of coronavirus and SARS in China is believed to have passed from bats and other animals to humans in a wet market.

"The presence of a large reservoir of SARS-CoV-like viruses in horseshoe bats, together with the culture of eating exotic mammals in southern China, is a time bomb. The possibility of the re-emergence of SARS and other novel viruses from animals or laboratories and therefore the need for preparedness should not be ignored," a University of Hong Kong research paper said.

American Society for Microbiology had published this research paper titled ''Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus as an Agent of Emerging and Re-emerging Infection'' report in October 2007.

The research paper said that the rapid economic growth in southern China has led to an increasing demand for animal proteins, including those from exotic game food animals such as civets. Large numbers and varieties of these wild game mammals in overcrowded cages and the lack of biosecurity measures in wet markets allowed the jumping of this novel virus varies from animals to humans.

"The small re-emergence of SARS in late 2003 after the resumption of the wildlife market in southern China and the recent discovery of a very similar viruses in horseshoe bats, bat SARS-CoV, suggested that SARS can return if conditions are fit for the introduction, mutation, amplification, and transmission of this dangerous virus.

The paper was authored by Vincent C.C. Cheng, Susanna K.P. Lau, Patrick C.Y. Woo, and Kwok Yung Yuen of the Department of Microbiology, Research Centre of Infection and Immunology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.

--IANS

ravi/sn/skp/

See the rest here:
Researchers warned re-emergence of SARS-like virus in 2007 - Outlook India

Unequal cities bear the brunt of deadly disease outbreaks – Reuters

BANGKOK (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - As the Chinese city of Wuhan, the epicenter of the new coronavirus, becomes the latest urban center to face a deadly disease outbreak, city planners and physicians say such densely packed hubs are particularly vulnerable and may need a redesign.

Wuhan, a city of about 11 million, has been under virtual lockdown for over three weeks. More than 1,400 people on the mainland have died, according to authorities.

The outbreak has brought to mind another deadly epidemic, SARS, or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, which killed more than 770 people between 2002 and 2003.

That diseases epicenter was a housing estate in Hong Kong, amongst the most densely populated and unequal cities in the world.

With more than two-thirds of the global population forecast to live in urban areas by 2050, cities need to be designed for good health, said Sreeja Nair, a policy researcher at the Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities (LKYCIC) in Singapore.

While urban living offers prospects of better economic opportunities and infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, the way cities densify and expand plays a huge role in the spread of infectious diseases, she said.

Wealth inequality in cities also affects their vulnerability and capacity in terms of preparedness and response, Nair told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

This skew on account of socio-economic disparities and governance puts some parts of the population at higher risk, including those lacking access to proper housing, healthcare and basic utilities such as water and sanitation, she said.

Cities have long been magnets for people seeking economic opportunities and a better quality of life.

But these areas with people living in close proximity have also enabled the fast spread of disease, from bubonic plague in the Middle Ages to bird flu, SARS and the novel coronavirus.

Although urban residents generally have better health than rural populations, the risks are distributed unequally, with most of the burden falling on vulnerable segments such as slum dwellers, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

The WHO has identified urbanization as one of the key challenges for public health in the 21st century, even as it notes municipal agencies often implement health policies first and act more quickly than federal bodies in emergencies.

The urban environment is linked to a large number of noncommunicable diseases such as obesity, heart disease and pulmonary disease, as well as communicable diseases such as tuberculosis from crowding and poor ventilation, and waterborne and vector-borne diseases such as dengue, according to the WHO.

Urban areas also have more points of risk because of contact between humans and animals, said David Heymann, a professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

That includes areas with rodents, live domestic and wild animal markets, and suburban areas where animals are raised in industrial agricultural facilities, said Heymann, a former executive director at WHO where he led the response to SARS.

Urban areas are unique and must develop solutions in addition to strong disease detection and response systems to rapidly control emerging infections, he said.

The proliferation of drug-resistant infections and the myriad methods of transmission can overwhelm even the cleanest and wealthiest of cities.

Singapore, among the worlds best-planned cities but also among the most connected, has reported nearly 60 coronavirus cases, one of the highest tallies outside China.

Modern cities are better able to leverage technology to strengthen monitoring of cases and populations at risk, and create strong communication channels for building awareness and avoiding panic among residents, said Nair at LKYCIC.

But in addition, cities need good design and infrastructure, noted Matt Benson, program director at Think City, a government-backed urban regeneration agency in Malaysia.

More than density, what facilitates the spread of diseases in cities is human behavior. You can have a neighborhood of low density, but if no one picks up their waste that could lead to a dengue outbreak, he said.

Planners should focus on building 20-minute cities, or villages within the city, where one can get to their job, the doctor or their friends all within 20 minutes, he said.

Melbourne is already testing such neighborhoods where most daily needs are within a 20-minute walk, bike ride or public transport commute.

And Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo is aiming for the quarter-hour city to reduce pollution and improve the quality of life.

These high-density areas create greater social cohesion and bring more economic and environmental benefits, said Anjali Mahendra, research director at the World Resources Institutes Ross Center for Sustainable Cities in Washington, D.C.

What stops such areas from becoming overcrowded environments where disease transmission can be high is the availability of good quality physical infrastructure, with planning standards that promote liveability for all, she said.

Informal settlements in cities in developing countries have particular trouble accessing such services, she added.

Cities represent places of innovation, amenities, and opportunity, so we continue to see cities grow, Mahendra said.

But our urban institutions should function such that the economic benefits of cities, and the value created, are more equitably shared.

Reporting by Rina Chandran @rinachandran; additional reporting by Zoe Tabary @zoetabary; Editing by Jumana Farouky. Please credit the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the charitable arm of Thomson Reuters, that covers humanitarian news, women's and LGBT+ rights, human trafficking, property rights, and climate change. Visit http://news.trust.org

View original post here:
Unequal cities bear the brunt of deadly disease outbreaks - Reuters

The Company Behind the Iowa Caucus App Debacle has a Deeply Troubling Plan to Manipulate Voters – Common Dreams

Those gathered to see the Iowa caucus results roll in on February 4 were sorely disappointed- the vote-counting process had been delayed by the slick new app meant to make the process more efficient had malfunctioned, delaying the announcement of the final results until Friday. The botched voting process caused an uproar online, sparking rumors about another DNC effort to sideline Bernie. The debacle also brought scrutiny to Shadow, the company that created the app, which bills itself as progressive digital consultancy.

While Shadows massive mishandling of the Iowa caucus vote is important, investigation into Shadow and its sole investor, Acronym, may have revealed something even worse.

A memo leaked by VICE last Friday showed that Shadow is part of a dense web of progressivenew media companies headed by Tara McGowan, a former Obama campaign staffer with personal ties to the Buttigieg campaign. While parent company Acronym News Corp has distanced itself publicly from Shadow, but org charts show that it is closely intertwined with the tech company as part of a concerted campaign to counter Republican messaging online and reach Democratic voters through strategic narratives. They plan to disseminate content with a mix of paid advertising and messaging from local new sites set up in swing states, with messages optimized to convert citizens based on their online activity.

What is deeply concerning is McGowans seeming inability to distinguish between reporting and strategic communication. According to the VICE article, Asked whether they had license to report freely on Democratic politicians or were tasked with, as the document says, Reach[ing] voters with strategic narratives + information year-round, she said, I dont know what the difference between the two is.

The memo states that Acronyms previous campaign has shown how much more effective boosting and targeting owned media and news content online was over pre-produced ads at influencing a voters support for or against an issue. Essentially, Acronym treats reporting and advertising as different methods to reach the same objective. In a glowing profile in Bloomberg news, McGowan anticipated critiques of this approach:

A lot of people I respect will see this media company as an affront to journalistic integrity because it wont, in their eyes, be balanced, she says. What I say to them is, Balance does not exist anymore. In her view, there are only facts and lies.

And according to McGowan, facts are bits of information that happen to align with a progressive agenda. She sounds a lot like Breitbart News Bureau Chief Matt Boyle, who said back in 2017, Journalistic integrity is dead. There is no such thing anymore. So everything is about weaponization of information.

McGowan is essentially arguing for a liberal adoption of right-wing media tactics, under the guise of objective, fact-based local news. She argues that this is necessary in a media ecosystem where right-wing opinion media has steadily gained ground since the 1980s, first through the underutilized airwaves of AM talk radio, and more recently through digital channels that amplify Fox Newscoverage on social media. McGowan is correct in pointing out that this creates a conservative feedback loop of sensationalist, hyper-partisan content that is particularly effective in an era where headlines are more influential than the articles themselves.

The issue with this response is that it completely devalues any concept of truth. While it is no secret that complete objectivity is unattainable, it is reporters commitment to pursuing this impossible ideal that sets them apart from advertising execs.

SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT

Get our best delivered to your inbox.

Journalists, unlike many other professionals, do not have a claim to expertise through extensive training or certification. Instead, media sociologists C.W. Anderson and Michael Schudson have made the widely accepted claim that the unifying factor within the profession is a commitment to a professional ideology that values objectivity as a normative endpoint. Even while most journalists recognize the irreducible plurality of viewpoints that comprise reality, journalists use best practices, such as corroborating information with multiple sources, to get as close to a shared, objective truth as possible.

This approach is not without limitations. Notably, the journalistic practice of reporting on both sides of an issue, once enshrined in US broadcast law, often creates false equivalencies between issues of different magnitudes, and can increase the reach of extreme viewpoints. In the same Bloomberg article, McGowan critiques liberal media for its narrow focus on liberal, white, urban audiences. She isnt wrong. However, traditional journalism is rooted in a desire to provide audiences with sufficient information to evaluate issues for themselves.

In contrast, McGowan has pressed for the abandonment of flawed attempts to achieve objectivity altogether, arguing that they are futile in a distributed, digital media environment. Instead, as her plan for Acronym News Corp shows, she treats the dissemination of information as a means to an end- in this case, converting citizens to Democratic voters.

The glaring issue with this approach is that it denies voter autonomy, instead treating audiences as targets for political manipulation. This undermines the concept of democracy as a society governed by the people, instead treating citizens as pawns in a game run by propaganda shops.

Acronym is made more dangerous by its use of audience tracking to micro-target and convert certain segments of the population, as internet advertisers do. McGowans memo describes this as optimization etc. etc. But media scholars have pointed out that such transparency impinges on the free will of users, creating a dystopian feedback loop that is controlled by those with enough resources to buy and process information. Nick Couldry and Ulises Mejias have termed such practices data colonialism, suggesting that the increasingly precise rendering of human behavior as data creates new and dangerous power dynamics premised, like McGowans tactics, on a lack of user autonomy.

Technology scholars Helen Nissenbaum, Daniel Susser, and Beatte Roessler point out that such violations at the level of personal autonomy are directly linked to the integrity of democracy. For them, autonomy is writ small what democracy is writ largethe capacity to self-govern, and It is only because we believe individuals can make meaningfully independent decisions that we value institutions designed to register and reflect them.

The point is not that manipulation never happens in democracies, but that abandoning the ideal of the autonomous, self-reflective voter represents a turn away from democratic governance. It also means that protecting this ideal might require placing ethical limits on the reach of technology. For example, just because we can track every users clicks and eye movements doesnt mean we should.

Related concerns of this nature have led to the recent restriction of targeting for political ads on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. But because of its status as a for-profit news corp, Acronym and others like it are able to skirt such regulations.

More:
The Company Behind the Iowa Caucus App Debacle has a Deeply Troubling Plan to Manipulate Voters - Common Dreams

How to Make the Study of Consciousness Scientifically Tractable – Scientific American

Strangely, modern science was long dominated by the idea that to be scientific means to remove consciousness from our explanations, in order to be objective. This was the rationale behind behaviorism, a now-dead theory of psychology that took this trend to a perverse extreme.

Behaviorists like John Watson and B.F. Skinner scrupulously avoided any discussion of what their human or animal subjects thought, intended or wanted, and focused instead entirely on behavior. They thought that because thoughts in other peoples heads, or in animals, are impossible to know with certainty, we should simply ignore them in our theories. We can only be truly scientific, they asserted, if we focus solely on what can be directly observed and measured: behavior.

Erwin Schrdinger, one of the key architects of quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th century, labeled this approach in his philosophical 1958 book Mind and Matter, the principle of objectivation and expressed it clearly:

By [the principle of objectivation] I mean a certain simplification which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it and without being rigorously systematic about it, we exclude the Subject of Cognizance from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand. We step with our own person back into the part of an onlooker who does not belong to the world, which by this very procedure becomes an objective world.

Schrdinger did, however, identify both the problem and the solution. He recognized that objectivation is just a simplification that is a temporary step in the progress of science in understanding nature.

He concludes: Science must be made anew. Care is needed.

We are now at the point, it seems to a growing number of thinkers who are finally listening to Schrdinger, where we must abandon, where appropriate, the principle of objectivation. It is time for us to employ a principle of subjectivation and in doing so understand not just half of realitythe objective worldbut the whole, the external and internal worlds.

The science of consciousness has enjoyed a renaissance in the last couple of decades and the study of our own mindsconsciousness/subjectivityhas finally become a respectable pursuit. Its still tricky, however, to determine what kinds of data and what kinds of experiments we should consider legitimate in the study of consciousness.

We are retreating from the notion of only objective science being legitimate. We are now developing a new set of standards to replace objectivity. These new standards are based on the notion of intersubjective confirmation. This fancy term just means that we recognize that all objective data are data that we can discuss and decide as a community of scientists whether to regard as accurate and relevant and thus true. Truth is intersubjective, not objective. There is no view from nowhere. There is always a somewhere, a perspective, a subject.

This is the epistemological hard problem lurking behind the ontological hard problem. The former asks: What kinds of data and questions do we need to ask to figure out the nature of consciousness? How does science make sense of what has seemed to so many for so long to be a scientifically intractable problem? The latter is the now well-known reframing of the classic mind/body problem proposed by David Chalmers in his 1996 book The Conscious Mind: Toward a Theory of Consciousness.

Nobel laureate Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi made the epistemological problem clear in their 2001 book A Universe of Consciousness:

Consciousness poses a special problem that is not encountered in other domains of science. What we are trying to do is not just to understand how the behavior or cognitive operations of another human being can be explained in terms of the working of his or her brain. We are not just trying to connect a description of something out there with a more sophisticated scientific description. Instead, we are trying to connect a description of something out therethe brainwith something in herean experience, our own individual experience, that is occurring to us as conscious observers.

So, the study of consciousness requires a mapping between two very different domains: an objective (i.e., intersubjective) measurable world out there and a subjective hard-to-measure internal world. How do these worlds correspond to each other? What physical structures are associated with consciousness and why? How far down the chain of being does consciousness extend?

I want to suggest here, however, that while the study of subjectivity, as a physical phenomenon, is different to some degree because its turning the very lens of consciousness back on itself, it is not different in kind from other scientific objects of study.

Reasonable inference is a commonly used tool in science because we very rarely know what is really going on in whatever area of science were focused on. We make inferences all the time, based on the best information available. Neuroscientist Christof Koch makes this point well in his new book The Feeling of Life Itself.

A number of neuroscientists and philosophers are now developing various tools for measuring the presence and type of consciousnesssome of which I discussed in my last essay here.

All of these tests depend on reasonable inference. We cant know any consciousness other than our own.

A colleague, psychologist Jonathan Schooler at the University of California, Santa Barbara, told me that an important aspect of first-person science is identifying key tenets that emerge from experience itself, and then examining what implications they may have for science more generally. He and other scientists are fleshing out a first-person science and a metascience along these lines.

To sum up, by ignoring mind in nature we ignore ourselvesbecause the world is, for each of us, wholly a creation of our own mind, but based on the imperfect sense data we receive from the objective world. What we gain by accepting subjectivity as part of nature is a more complete science.

Human minds are, in this new view of science, a natural product of the evolution of mind and matter, which are just two aspects of the same thing. Human minds represent the most complex form of mind in this corner of our universe, as far as we know.

We are, then, special in the complexity of our minds, but we are not distinct in a qualitative sense from the rest of nature, and the infinite number of far less complex minds that constitute naturethe world all around us.

We are now at a point where scientists and philosophers who study consciousness can roll up their sleeves and get busy testing the nature of consciousness in its many manifestations, and that data will, in turn, feed back into our theories of consciousness, and of physical reality more generally, in an ongoing dance of unfolding truth.

Read the rest here:
How to Make the Study of Consciousness Scientifically Tractable - Scientific American